NHK working on 8k video sensor capable of 120fps

Japanese national broadcaster NHK has said it is developing a sensor capable of shooting 8k video at 120fps. It will be able to support the company's Super Hi-Vision standard of 7680x4320 pixels (generically known as UHDTV) which, at 33MP, is 16x higher resolution than current 1080 HD technology. The high-speed chip is being developed with Shizuoka University and was reported at the IEEE Internation Solid-State Circuit Conference currently taking place in San Francisco. (via The Verge)

Comments

If a human has a field of view of ~155 degrees horizontally by 105 degrees vertically - and the angular resolution of the eye is approximately 1 arcminute (1/60th of a degree), covering the entire view of a human with maximum distinguishable resolution would require 155x60 = 9300 pixels horizontally by 6300 pixels - or ~58MP.(sorry if my figures are off - I don't claim accuracy)Screens do take up less than the entire fov in normal viewing situations though - let's say half for a very big screen, that's 4650x3150pixels or 14,5 MP.Except for immersive content and displays, I can't see the use of 8k for straight 'human consumption' and by the time it arrives in my living room, my eyesight will not be up to it anyway.

I do wish to add that visual resolution are highest for fovea, 1 deg off centre, and falls off quickly after I think just 5 deg off centre. much few pixels are needed at the peripheral vision to produce a perceptive clarity equal to the one delivered by your 9.3kx6.3k screen.

yes - I left that out since there's limited space in a comment.Lowering the resolution to the periphery would make sense, especially since the further out you go, the more surface has to be covered.I hope one day to see a more immersive cinematic image, perhaps an image filling 3/4 of the fov view, with vignetting to the borders - and black outside. And I'm confident it won't need 8k resolution. 5k would be plenty - but framerate, dynamic range and stereoscopy would need to be improved.

The resolution is about 1.2 arcmin per line pair at the visual center (fovea). So you need 2 pixel lines to display a line pair per 1.2 arcmin. So 8K are actually not enough. Also your eyes constantly moves so whole display needs to have the high res. Technology wise your future TV will allow you to watch a slowmo anytime you want it so 120fps are good but not great. And last but not least imagine the high quality still image that you could get from potentially any frame you like. And there are probably countless more things you can do with that. If I had a camera like that I would ditch my still camera... maybe not but anyway it would be awesome!

mvxray, the counting is for Foveon-like sensors right? for Bayer sensors which are less efficient as stacked pixels we will need about 1.5 times more pixels.

an NHK test showed we need 60-70 cpd at 75% correct discrimination probability which translates to around 100MP across a 100 degree 16:9 screen.

we need less resolution for motions, NHK thinks 33MP is enough for most people based on their tests. the Hitachi prototype uses 3 sensors. so a Bayer sensor DSLR will need at least 50MP to provide similar quality.

think 30MP will be the minimum for future cameras except small mobile devices and 30-60MP is the standard range at the low end. 100+MP be the middle range and several hundred MPs the high resolution.

portable Super Hi-Vision cameras will kill 1DX and D4 type flagship DSLRs at the 2020 Olympic games with 240fps for smooth video. it is difficult now but we have time to solve it.

ask a gamer and it isn't enough.for slow motion it is FAR from enough.for cinema, The Hobbit is supposedly filmed at 48fps (and 5k and 3D) and is likely to be a big leap in movie viewing experience.For watching commercials it's a waste.When checking specs for my next stills camera - it's irrelevant.

You clearly would not have a conventional SLR design for a camera designed to shoot at 120fps. If you look at the high speed film cameras, none of them use a reciprocating motion viewing system as complex as an SLR. Think out of the box before you go off chasing imaginary problems.

Context: a 42" TV is roughly twice the size (area) of a 27" TV. 1080p vs 720p seems more noticeable on the larger screen but in most video formats, including NTSC, a 42" screen has about 5 times the visual impact of a 27" screen. 4k, and eventually 8k video formats will multiply the visual impact for larger displays much as HD multiplies the visual impact compared with NTSC.The absolute resolution is less relevant than the production techniques that can take advantage of it. In particular, 3D presentation without glasses might be both more practical and more affordable.Future video manipulation software can use additional video detail to render imagery with greater appearance of depth and other appearance of reality cues. I imagine there will be new video processing features innovated to take advantage of the more detailed video stream much like audio engineering has innovated processing methodologies unimagined in analog days.Does anyone want to go back to black and white NTSC?

It's nice that NHK is producing a sensor to go with their new high resolution display, but it would be really great if they and the camera manufacturers would be realistic about "resolution" and stop the foolish and misleading use of equating resolution to pixel count. Doing so tends, as the discussion here shows, to confuse people who have only a "marketing" understanding of the term "resolution." Resolution is not defined by pixel count, it is only roughly correlated to pixel count and then only somewhat useful as a metric when comparing like sensors (CFA or Foveon). Increasing pixel count by 16x absolutely does not increase "resolution" by 16x; it increases resolution by 4x and then only in theory because in practice there are intervening variables which serve to reduce the actual optical resolution to below the theoretical limit. "Resolution" is measured by photographing resolution charts then counting the line pairs per millimeter visible viz a viz the printed numeric value.

At night, all cats are gray.At night, all video is sub-standard def.Old TV can look worse on UDTV.At comfortable viewing distance, most UDTV will look the same as HDTV or even DVD grade.UDTV will cost more and be meaningless on a small screen.But people will still buy UDTV displays to be conspicuous, brag to each other, and avoid shame.

One could make similar arguments about expensive DSLRs, since most peoples photos will look the same on small screens and few of their viewers will care. But opinion will mandate that people spend to the max.

Why should the definition of resolution for a digital monitor be any different from a digital sensor? They both have PIXELS.... one captures them,one displays them. Let's quit making issues where they don't exist. We all know what it means to have a 4 MP sensor, or a 4 MP monitor.... geeeesh, stop the silly arguments.

Apparently we "don't" all know what it means to have a "4 MP sensor" - otherwise there would not be the discussion. It's time for the term "resolution" to be used properly. "Resolution" is not defined as the "number of pixels" produced by a sensor's output, nor by the number of photosites on the sensor. It's clearly defined by the amount of detail possible to "resolve." Read the reviews of cameras here on dPReview. Go to the Resolution tests. Why do we bother "testing" resolution at all if we simply use the number of pixels on the sensor as a metric?

pixel count counts on the sensor side. besides resolution, smaller pixels could also mean higher image quality: lower noise, wider dynamic range, etc., over larger pixels. the only issue now is at extremely high ISO settings but we are pushing it higher and higher.

for home use, resolution does not need be super high vision unless you want wall sized screens.

That said the BBC has shown some excellent work on high framerate TV. 300fps overtakes the visual system and looks indistinguishable from looking through a window. There's a subtle change in the look that takes place at around 240 fps, motion blur and other artifacts we assumed we are stuck with, just vanish.

300 is the sweet spot for another reason. It's 5 x 60 and 6 x50 and 12 x 25 and 10 x 30 so the legacy formats can upscale much more easily. The mutant 29.97 timebase will just have to burn in hell, where it belongs.

"video at 120fps"! Now this is what I've been waiting for! Its about time we get rid of the archaic, flickering, eye-strain inducing 24,30 and 60 fps standards. I can't believe big movie theaters still use 24 fps...so pathetic and embarrassing. And did I mention that even 60 fps on an led monitor gives me eye strain every time?

LED monitor gives you eye strain for totally different reason: PWM, which is the cause of flickering (that TFT panel itself doesn't have): http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pulse_width_modulation.htmIt can also be a crappy TN panel with bad contrast.None of that will be solved by 120fps video.

Claiming this is too much or a waste is akin to saying a photographer who shoots stuff to put on the web should just as well use a 2Mp stills camera. After all, what website would use images over 2MP? But that's missing the point entirely.

But is a 32mp sensor "progress" relative to a 16mp sensor? Was the Concorde a more efficient way to cross the Atlantic than a sub-sonic jet?

I'll concur that 4k or 8k video might be great for large theater screens, or to let one crop wide shots the way one can do with still photos. However, it will be years before there is an affordable 16-core PC or poor-man's editing tool that can process the stuff, and the typical future viewer's screen is more apt to be 7" or smaller, rather than an 8k wall screen fit for a royal manor great hall.

AAMOF, I seldom take shots any larger than 3MP, and shoot plenty at only 1920x1080 if it is to be part of a video work.

I second others about dynamic range issues - I like the speed increase as 30fps and even 60fps is slow with dynamic scenes or panning - and with good compression the bandwidth hit can be kept to a miniumum.

I am amazed that they are at such a high resolution with "production" chips AND the processors to handle such data - truely amazing and beyond any forseen consumer use - 4K will be great at home, but 8K???

When the Goldman or Morgan Stanley junior managing director starts bragging about his 8k screen, you can bet that his boss will ditch his 4k screen and start looking for a 16k one. But it's also possible he'll do something more sumptuous and by a jet or copter to fly to places and events others see only on screen.

Kid stuff. Superman was already doing it in the 1930s. It was so elementary, that he could do it in mere comic books. Every layperson "knows" it can be done by security cams or drones hovering in the stratosphere. They've seen it on TV.

That is not 16x the resolution, it is only 4x the resolution i.e. resolution in each of its two dimensions -- it is 16x the *area*, or 16x the number of *pixels*. It is best to talk in resolution terms, that is the width or height of the sensor in pixels, since that determines the true ability to resolve detail, or crop/zoom while maintaining detail -- the total number of pixels is of lesser use as its relation to resolution is affected by the aspect ratio of the sensor, and resolution is proportional to the square root of pixel count -- silly to talk in total pixel count.

Just a matter of terms. Most people use resolution for the area, but this is not correct. Resolution is measured for each axis separately. Wiki: In effect, spatial resolution refers to the number of pixel values per unit length.AND:But when the pixel counts are referred to as resolution, the convention is to describe the pixel resolution with the set of two positive integer numbers, where the first number is the number of pixel columns (width) and the second is the number of pixel rows (height), for example as 640 by 480.

Kirppu: exactly, just marketing speak, which going by the replies many people prefer ;) One is good for making you buy things you don't really need, the other has a useful, physical meaning which would be good for photographers to understand. Oh well, can't teach those that are sure they already know.

...this will be popular with Hollywood, who will continue struggiling to come up with a high tech medium to keep their content relevant. Sadly, they could just spend it on the content itself and get better results. They don't "get it" now and they won't get it in the future.

guess they have to start working on genetically manipulated actors with extra-smooth skin, are upgrade the make-up and postprocessing departments. Such super high resolution can destroy some illusions ;-(

Animation or special effects block-busters look worse as one revs up the resolution to extremes. Lots of work with live actors already employs soft lens or blur effects to flatter aging or dermitologically-disadvantaged actors.

It's called a Phantom HD and it runs 1080p. I believe Sony makes something similar too, but can't remember the model name. There are at least two on the market now. Go ahead buy/rent one. Don't wait any longer.

I am aware of the Phantoms. The Phantom v7.3 I use at work was $100,000 and the Miro 3 €15,000. It's time consumers get an affordable option. Nikon V1 and Casio do 1200 fps but at postage stamp image size. Except for human/animal motion such speed is still too slow for other things.

Yes, casio exilim HS is 224x64 at 1000fps, 120fps at 640x480 or 512x384 at 240fps. I wonder why no other manufacturer make such models, maybe it's more hype to cram more and more pixel or put fancy art filter.

It's not a waste, it gives you the ability to pan, scan, and zoom in your video in post rather than having to do this while taking the video (ie. if you want to follow a single dancer on a stage without having to move the camera). Or even make multiple videos from the same source. Being able to do these things in post opens up a lot more possibilities, and it's also essentially a 120fps sports mode so you'll never miss another instant shot.

... mmmthis is not something "real" yet and by that I mean physically available in your very special tech dealer... not even going into im/possible price tag.I AM FORWARD TECHNOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR EXPRESSION.I can understand (not that I could ever possibly invest in one of these super-duper-eyes or their CASINGs) benefits of exploiting 8k, particularly in generous budget productions.as someone has already pointed out, i'll rather go for better DR (like the red) and improved SNR… i'd love to shoot, photos and specially video, in a room with natural light, say at iso 12.800 without visual bug infestation, X)I also prefer to choose what i want to frame… maybe it is foolish, naive or obsolete but I like this feeling of something happening outside the frame/picture; I like to work in an exclusive kind of way (not with other things or not including other things).

Great. I'm hoping that lowly 4K displays (first for Computers and then flat screen TVs) become available & affordable by next year Christmas given that the 9.7 inch IPad 3 is rumored to have a greater than HD display.

4K displays will really change how I enjoy my usually non-printed photographs.

Camera maker has to keep up their MP race again, now to catch the video demand. But it's good thing. Technology advancement is always welcome :).Someday when you look back, 1080p is just not clear enough, just like you view 720p now...

ianz28, NHK is most definitely a technology "company." Yes, they are first and foremost a national broadcaster on the same model as BBC, but they've been at the cutting edge of technical development in the broadcasting field for a very long time. They began development of HDTV in 1966, they were the first to produce and broadcast HDTV

NHK runs an extensive R&D operation. http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/english/index.html Rather than take whatever electronics manufacturers dish out, they take the lead in finding solutions for their needs. They collect a fair amount of patent licensing revenue from the manufacturing sector.

@ianz28, lets assume they are only doing broadcasting business. No matter what they do, they come out with something new, cutting edge technology, that's called technology advancement.As for the difference between 720 vs 1080, is your tv larger than 40 inch? In fact, it's noticeable even on 32 inch tv if you put them side by side.. oh by the way, i suspect you are not playing blueray?

Thank you, I didn't know NHK was in the R&D field of broadcasting (mediums/technology).

@ Spidercrown

Most definitely have (2x) blue ray players and the sound system to accompany the one for the living room.

For the longest time it was a high(er) end 42" Panasonic Plasma 1080p that was our living room TV.

After that TV died twice (and repaired by panasonic - hence delegated to light duty in the bedroom) we bought a 50" 720P Plasma for half the cost of the 42" and while yes, there is a slight visible difference in black levels and a slight nod towards resolution when closely scrutinized..... But, when sitting at normal viewing distances ~ 3-4 meters I'm hard pressed to truly see a difference.

Yes, I'm sure if I set the TV's side by side I would be able to see that the older higher end 1080P actually has a better picture.

But, thats the thing. You have to put the two TV's side by side to "truly" see the difference.

The 160-by-72-foot screen in Dallas Cowboys stadium is only 1920 by 1080 pixels of information and it does just fine. it is much larger than any movie screen except some of the old drive in movies. I don't see a real reason for this other than a design study.

Well the largest screen in a movie theater here in Copenhagen is 25m wide. With a 2k projector each pixel is about 12mm wide (half an inch). So don't get too close to the screen. So higher resolution is not without reason.

I would really like to see them delivering the 8K 120FPS video to the Japanese homes... I mean like pumping that volume of data in high-quality lossless compression format all the way to 40 millions homes or will be interesting to hear about....

By Cleber RodriguesParticularly, I think at least nowadays an obsolete technology. At least in Brazil are still with deployments of emerging new HD and just resolutions to which a person uses it at home will not be viable.